OMANAKUTTAN PILLAI Vs. VIJAYAKUMARI G & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment in Cri. A. No. 109 of 2013 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Kollam confirming the conviction and modifying the sentence imposed on the petitioner in S.T. No. 879 of 2011 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottarakkara. The petitioner was tried for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The allegation of the first respondent/complainant is that the revision petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- from her. The revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque in discharge of the said legally enforceable liability. But, when the complainant presented the cheque for encashment the same was dishonoured for the reason " account closed". Thereupon, the complainant issued a notice intimating the revision petitioner of the dishonour of the cheque and calling upon him to pay the amount due. It is the failure on the part of the revision petitioner to effect payment of the amount within the statutorily prescribed period that constrained the complainant to file the complaint which was taken on file and numbered as S.T. No. 879 of 2011. On due process the revision petitioner appeared before the court and the particulars of the charge were read over and explained to him and the revision petitioner pleaded not guilty. The complainant got herself examined as PW1 and got marked Exts.P1 to P5 to establish the charge against the revision petitioner. On the closure of the evidence of the complainant the revision petitioner herein was examined under Section 313, Cr. P. C. and denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him. However, no defence evidence was adduced. On a careful evaluation of the evidence the trial court found that the complainant has succeeded in establishing the fact that the revision petitioner herein has committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequently, he was convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month besides directing him to pay a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3), Cr. P. C. and in default of payment of compensation to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. The revision petitioner took up the matter in appeal as Cri. A. No. 109 of 2013 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Kollam. Various contentions were raised against the judgment of the trial court. However, the learned Sessions Judge found no ground to invoke the appellate jurisdiction. It was found that the conclusions and findings of the trial court are perfectly in tune with the evidence adduced. In the said circumstances, the appellate court confirmed the conviction but, at the same time, modified the sentence. The substantive sentence was reduced to simple imprisonment till rising of the court. The direction to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3), Cr. P. C. and in default of payment of compensation to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months were maintained by the appellate court. The captioned revision petition has been filed against the said judgment confirming the conviction and modifying the sentence as aforesaid.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) As noticed hereinbefore, conviction was concurrently entered against the revision petitioner by the courts below for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. In such circumstances, an interference by exercising the revisional jurisdiction is called for only if the revision petitioner succeeds in establishing that the appreciation of evidence by the courts below are utterly perverse or that the conclusions reached are totally against the weight of the evidence on record. Having carefully gone through the pleadings in this revision petition and also after hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner I have no hesitation to hold that no such grounds were made out by the revision petitioner to compel this Court to exercise the revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent finding of conviction entered against him. No error in law was also brought to my notice. Virtually, the revision petitioner took up only the contentions which were unsuccessfully raised before the appellate court. In the said circumstances, the conviction entered against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is liable to be confirmed and accordingly, it is confirmed.